click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18
government and freep enterprise movement and connect those policies. >> why has there been a failure to connect? >> i'm not sure there is one reason for it and i haven't had time to think about it why it has happened but it needs to happen. the principles we stand for, free enterprise and limited government is the only way to stabilize and grow our middle class which i hope every american can attain. >> how worried are you about the republican chances -- >> you mean from the voters' perspective. the demographic changes? i don't think any voter in america -- there are voters that are locked into one party or the other but the fastest growing group is people who vote for candidates and not parties and people understand the issues and hopes that they have and offer real and concrete policy situations and real role for government to play in addressing those angst yits they face. we are one election away to do it. we have to recognize what it is and concentrate on doing it. >> how much of a danger to republicans do you think is posed by the changing demographic? >> it's not a danger but i
government should stick to the constitution. the state courts have nothing to say about it. we say no gay marriage, period. we should not go around and heard them. it is unnatural for a man to be with a man. i think we should have won solid law against it. host: why keep it at a government level and not at the state level? caller: look at what is going on now. we set a lot. everybody says, i interpret it this way or that way. it is causing more and more problems. we do that all of the time. man, woman, period. host: "the washington post" adds -- good morning from minnesota on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. this is what i have not heard said by both -- most of the things i have listened to or watched between the debates on gay marriage. it is all legal documents. some states have the take a blood test. you have to get a marriage license from your state or county. when you get married, you get married in a church. % a church document with witnesses. if you get a divorce, you cannot say i will wrap up this thing we signed a in church. you have to get attorneys and illegal
poll. it found 62% of americans would like to see the federal government leaders compromise on an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff budget measures set to go into effect next month. more than twice the 25% who want leaders to stick to their principles. a majority of all party groups favor compromise. here is the breakdown from the gallup organization. 71% of democrats say they want a compromise bursa's 21% who say the party should stick to their principles. among republicans 55% one compromise. 35% say stick to your principles. the gallup poll also found americans are more optimistic and pessimistic that an agreement will be reached before the deadline. 58% say it is a very or somewhat likely leaders will find a solution. 39% say it is not likely. democrats are much more optimistic. 77% of democrats believe it is somewhat likely an agreement will be reached compared to 33% of republicans. we will be getting to all of the latest on the fiscal clef. we want to hear from you about the idea of compromise. comments already coming in from the facebook page. you can give us a cal
in of government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republi
secretary of the treasury, alexander hamilton, observe energy is a leading character in good government. the president must lead in a divided government and must not advocate his or her responsibility. president obama has the responsibility to propose a real bipartisan plan to avert the fiscal cliff that can pass both the house and the senate. withdrawing from the recommendations of the simpson- bowles commission, the president could propose a plan that would not only avert the so-called fiscal cliff, but also help us avert the fiscal abyss. if president obama were to offer such a plan, republicans would act favorably. going over the cliff is unnecessary. as it has been observed in "the wall street journal," the president is boxing in the republicans. he is offering them a deal they cannot accept. first, the president has repeatedly called for a balanced solution involving both revenue and less spending. what is obvious to the most casual observer is that this plan is not a balanced. the fiscal cliff involves nearly four dollars of anticipated revenue from higher taxes for every dollar
is that it is a government agency that is not as nimble. long-term, if you have 3% down payment, it is one thing to trust that the lenders to use the program will operate according to the guidelines, but does the institution have the bandwidth to change circumstances? even if it were not as severe as 2006, say we go through a period where congress allows downpayment-funded assistance. how able is the fha to set those proper underwriting standards? >> there is no question that the fha any other agency needs to be more organized than what we have today. fhfa it is 80 years old. it has never required taxpayer money. the fact that we have a 1000- year flat and fha has plans for a 100-year flat, it is unfortunate, but it has worked out somewhat well. >> what we should be thinking about is, how do we take advantage of this opportunity to learn how to do the modernization that roberta talked about? we did learn about ko'd during this crisis, when fha wanted to change its standards and eliminate a program that was clearly costing it a significant portion, having an agency which does not have the authority to act
of government, and the president is proposing to grow it more. to spend more. the problem is isn't tax policy, mr. speaker. the problem is spending. you know, mr. speaker, we hear a lot about fairness. i want to talk a little bit about that now. i'm going to switch to tax policy because that's what everybody seems to be obsessed with in the media. i want to make sure we dispel some of the myths of what's going on there. i went to dictionary.com as i'm apt to do, mr. speaker, and printed out what fair is. they said free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. the first definition. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice. and two, legitimately thought, pursued, done, or given proper under the rules. fair. but i think we all support fairness. i'm certain that we do, but i'm absolute certain what president obama believes is fair is different from what the people i represent believe is fair. and what i brought here, mr. speaker, is a chart from the joint committee on taxation, that's the group here on capitol hill that is in charge of measuring all the tax policy, it's a nonpartisan group, they just
yesterday on c- span2. if any family brand their house all the way the u.s. government ran there's, if we could not print money, we would be in a very bad way. i just think we need to get this deficit under control. those two wars that we have not paid for need to be paid for. you know, it has to be done. if going off the fiscal cliff means that it will be done, so be it. host: other groups are weighing in on these fiscal cliff talks. here is "the new york times" -- in the "financial times" this morning -- roger altman writing today in "the financial times." president obama will be meeting with several governors today at the white house to talk about the fiscal cliff. they will be meeting this morning around 10:00 a.m. eastern time, and then the governors are slated to hold a news conference at around 11:30 a.m. eastern time. go to our website for more details. washington insiders tackle fiscal cliff policy solutions. the group will hold a roundtable discussion today on the importance of reform to address the nation's debt and deficit spending this event takes place this morning around 8:
. where are we going to get it? coming from the government, everybody thinks that are entitled to something. thank you for the call. the top solution is to break the congressional gridlock. north dakota on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. the number one priority is bringing jobs home from china. host: you are on the air. go ahead, roger. caller: these people that sold our country out, they need to be exiled to themselves. host: good morning on the independent line. what is the number-one priority as the president embarks on a second term? caller: the issue a want to talk about this morning is one both sides agree with. everybody agrees but the tax code needs to be reformed, simplified. it needs to be changed in a permanent way where businessmen and individuals can plan for the future. there are multiple ways to do this, cut in reductions, giving everybody a fair chance to the tax code. i think it will really chance the economy. put it on a solid basis for businesses to plan and go into the future with. host: what do you think the president's number one priority should
, government, and not spending enough money to keep people employed. inking money out of the system would drive off the unemployment system. ployment up the uneml rate. to become the primary reason to extend unemployment is just the compassionate thing to do. people rely on the benefits. it would be a crushing blow. they provide a crucial crutch for the economy that still needs it. host: we are taking your calls the numbers are there for you. we will still have the line for those receiving of employment insurance -- tool 2-585-383. you can give us a call on that line. i want to talk about the bureau of labor statistics on unplowed numbers that are out as a just a couple of minutes ago -- on employment numbers that are out just as a couple of minutes ago in an employment rate is down to 7.7%. mr. josh bivens, how will that play into the debate over the extension of unemployment insurance? guest: i am not sure. i am afraid we have had such low expectations that people might see this as a fantastic jobs report. i have not gone into the details. the headline number, 146,000 jobs is not fantastic. i
home is the american dream. government support excessive borrowing has turned into a national nightmare, close quote. and the focus of that editorial was, we still haven't fundamentally reformed that, including at f.h.a. so i hope we start getting on that track starting today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator menendez. >> thank you very much. i'll be brief. i look forward to hearing the secretary's response on how f.h.a. balances the goals of remaining self-sufficient without taxpayer funds, but also helping what is still a fragile housing market in ensuring first-time home buyers can get credit. there is a clear case to be made in my mind that but for f.h.a. in the midst of this housing crisis, we would have a far greater crisis on our hands. and so reconciling the fiduciary responsibilities here to the taxpayers as well as the mission to people of america is incredibly important. i look forward to hearing that. and with your indulgence, mr. chairman, when it comes to my time in questions, while i certainly care about f.h.a., i have a even more pressing issue in the state of new jer
to work from some form of tax on the infrastructure that we build. it is the duty of our government to do things for people that they cannot do themselves. the rich can do for themselves. the poor people cannot. i'll hang up and listen. host: let's go to curtis dubay. guest: we keep hearing about infrastructure investment. but the way we do that is federal gaps. the 65 cents of every dollar raised for the federal gas tax actually goes to roads and bridges and highways. the rest of it goes to things that are not supposed to be funded by the attacks. sustainability projects, bike paths, roadside museums. i would much rather see us spending all of the money on infrastructure and then come back in five or 10 years and say, well, maybe then. we are spending the money on infrastructure. it is a weak argument. host: let's go to laura. caller: i have two comments to make. the first is, the bush tax cut entitlements were supposed to be temporary. i remember when they were argued, and as far as i'm concerned, republicans live at that time. they never intended it to be temporary. they intended it to
from the white house was let's fix this problem by incorporating a small businesses and less government intervention to curb the deficit. it has been astronomical. then i heard barack obama say the way we are going to do it is by making more cuts in various ways. he was saying by making more cuts and the only people it is going to hurt is the working class and somewhat of the middle-class. he should mention the fact that out of control spending has a lot to do with the credit card crunch. specifically because of the middle-class. i think if we get those tax cuts centered with them, i do not think the poll would be affected. you have these small companies that are developing, and he is saying have those small companies hire more people and get them involved, but come consumer expenditures. that is partially i think a solution. host: you are calling on the republican line and you think hillary clinton would make a good candidate. would you vote for her in 2016? caller: i think she would be a very vital aspect to the political process. as far as her running for president, 2016 -- god knows
. and so, listen, i understand ideologically why people who believe that they want to shrink government up so small they can drown it in a bathtub may always lead that way, but it's not in the best interest of the american people in my humble opinion. >> i am going to be measured in my response because you all have an obligation to ask questions. but i hope at some point you all who have heard us on this side and the other side of the aisle talking about this will do the math, quite honestly. i can tabulate very quickly for you $3 trillion worth of cuts that have now gone into law that democrats have been there on the tough -- on those tough negotiations. the chairman mentioned $1 trillion that was exacted as a result of the budget control act where the republicans were threatening for the first time have the nation default on its credit if we didn't do something. $1 trillion. that's already taking place, the $1 trillion in cuts. there's another $1.2 trillion that came from the same law, as we know, as the sequester, that also by law will start to take place. that's $2.2 trillion. we talke
options will get the revenue for the government. >> in terms of getting rid of deductions or expanding the base, there's basically three approaches to we can take. one is the overall cap. capping the total amount of deductions or capping the tax value of deductions like maya and marty feld stein have put forth and the advantage to that is politically you're not actually attacking anyone -- any one specific subsidy, you're just saying we're putting a cap on the overall system. a second way is what john podesta mentioned, we are going to change specific items but wohl change them all in the same way. you're not special, we're not picking on you, so we're going to change all deductions to 18% or something like that. the third way which is probably the perfect way from the economic approach is to deal with each of these on an individual bay sess. tax expenditures generally cover an enormous range of activities whether it's ex-cluges or deductions or credits or lower rates, etc. we call them all tax expenditures but it shouldn't hide the underlying heterogeneity. so a package that went afte
government citizens and academia. a final word, echoes of past and said the food well go into the future were the sum, all, or none of these can be called slavery, it is an issue that must be tackled with intellectual sensationalism. much has changed, but it is and there are to of where much as so the same. the alliance be to enforce labor and bondage is vital to understand its efforts have of is the issues. no matter what, and susceptible mugs that should no longer be a part of the human condition. and there is space for new leadership to spearhead the efforts. i hope one of the or many of the wall fell of the space. it is wide open for new leaders. take the mantles. it is my hope somebody will be inspired this weekend to say you're sorry will be the one to organize all of us and lead us into an area of her predicating slavery. thank you. [applause] >> please make sure e wait for the microphone. the >> anybody standing, there are since down here. i wanted to say i had a 7/it could have been a huge and was a church without slides. this is what we experienced. let's go to the audience. >> i wo
of the federal government. it isur job to protect people. it is our job to help communities rebuild when there are natural disasters that local governments just can't afford to be able to pay for on their own. now, new york has been working very hard to come up with a plan about how to rebuild. but the transportation infrastructure has taken an unbelievable beating. in new york alone, 2,000 miles of roads were destroyed or damage 11 tunnels were flooded. and our -- our city and our state really relies on mass transit. we are the number one users of mass transit in the country. and with our mass transit system, miles of tracks and tunnels were flooded with corrosive saltwater. 12 subway ations were damaged or destroyed, 500,000 transit riders are still experiencing severe disruptions. you will have the mta chairman come in which is fantastic. he can give you the nuts and bolts of the loss, the repairs, a lot of service is up and running now, b long-term repairs must be done. the storm just filled up the subways. when we builthese subways 100 years ago, they could not have imagined this ki
to run a government but also can deliver on the pornts things that makes it different for job creation. we're the folks that run the education systems that allow us to have the work force, the 21st-century jobs. that is what we get from higher education to work force training, the real obstacle and the income growth right now is having the best education systems. where we are producing the workers of the 21st century. second, we keep the bridges open and hopefully functional and rebuilt. we represent environmental policies to keep our water clear and take on the environmental challenges that we're facing. it is where the rubber hits the road that we need to get the results. we have democratic governors who not only balance budgets understand that they have to be fiscally responsible but we combine that with a vision on education, on ensuring that we get it right when it comes to technology, making sure we have a trained work force for the jobs that aring with created, so we can be the job creators and we see incomes rise on our constituent. that is what voters judge you by. when we com
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18